Do you feel speed van work

djimi

MugMugs wrote: »

Do static cameras really work though? At least with a van you know it might be there you know it might not.

With a static, you're guaranteed it's there and so you adjust but straight after it can just press back on the speed.

The main difference I guess is that you know a static camera is always there, so you will slow down for it. Once you realise the van isnt there chances are you will relax and probably speed up.

Presumably the better system would be the average speed cameras that they use in England, where even after you pass the first camera you have to watch your speed until you pass the second camera. A system like this would be far more beneficial to a village like the one described in the OP than having a static camera/van, as you could have a camera at either end of the village, ensuring that people have to take it easy the whole way through, rather than just in one spot.

MugMugs

Agreed, Average speed cameras would work a lot better than what we currently have. I just watch people on the M1 at the speed camera after the Dunleer slip. About 300metres before traffic slows and then straight afterwards its back to speeding. An illogical system imo.

ManMade

MugMugs wrote: »

Do static cameras really work though? At least with a van you know it might be there you know it might not.

With a static, you're guaranteed it's there and so you adjust but straight after it can just press back on the speed.

They'd be impossible to put in the 'fish in a barrel' places that a lot of go safe cameras are in. Annoyed locals with a verity of tools and paints. And of course they won't make as much money.

It would make sense to put them on dangerous bends with warning of the cameras position. It wouldn't be a money racket but it would be a lot safer.

With the go safe vans at this stage you know where they are and you know where they never are.

djimi

ManMade wrote: »

With the go safe vans at this stage you know where they are and you know where they never are.

I think that this is the biggest issue with the current system; its all very predictable. The vans almost always park in the same spot, so on the roads that you drive regularly you know where to expect them. If they had a 10km stretch of road that was marked as a camera zone, and the van was parked at random spots along the road, then it would be a lot less predictable and a lot more effective.

Another quite effective change would be to randomly throw two vans in the same zone. I know logistically it would be difficult to do, but you would only need to see it once in any zone in the country to make you think twice about relaxing after you have passed the van!

MugMugs

Issue a lot of the time is where they can locate. On the N2 for instance they're restricted on where they can safely park so it's always the same spots. There have also been times when land owners have had them pushed off their land due to trespass like on the Dunleer Collon link road between the N2 and M1

Iwannahurl

brokenarms wrote: »

I, as a resident have recently complained to the Garda in relation to the speed of motorists entering my village .
Their answer last week was a speed detection van placed in a very visible spot for 2 days.
My reasons behind the complaint was a number of separate fatal accidents over the last two years . And numerous collisions where speed could have been a factor. I have a young family and feel the speed of cars to be a threat to my children's safety.
Observing the road now, it seems to have helped as the speed of the traffic has reduced even when the van is not there.

I would say it has been a complete success and made our 50kph zone a safer place.

I though this may be a good place to debate the issue and answer a few questions I still have.

Why people flash and warn dangerous drivers of the upcoming van?
Surly warning some bad drivers who are blatantly disrespecting the law and people around them need to be flashed before they hurt someone.

Do you feel these devices are there to increase revenue only?

Do you think they will reduce road deaths on our roads?

Congratulations on persuading the Garda Siochana to enforce the speed limit in your neighbourhood. You are absolutely right to campaign for your own family's safety, and for safer roads generally. So far I have failed to convince them to do the same in my 'village'. Unfortunately, despite the rampant speeding in the 50 km/h zones, nobody has died yet on most of the roads in my general neck of the woods. In a couple of locations where fatalities (and serious injuries) have occurred, AGS has actually said the roads are too dangerous for siting speed cameras.

As I have said elsewhere, in my view it is irrational to wait until fatalities occur before implementing speed surveillance (or traffic calming, now that I think of it). However, it seems the politics of speed cameras dictate that people must die first in order to justify enforcing speed limits.

The downside of posting this thread, OP, is that it provides another opportunity for airing the usual nonsense about speed control: safety cameras are purely for generating revenue, they can be dangerous, keeping an eye on your speed is the biggest risk, blah blah etc.

Never mind the begrudgers, OP, because the evidence is on your side. For example:

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1338/1/2004_31.pdf

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004607/do-speed-cameras-reduce-road-traffic-crashes-injuries-and-deaths

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/bmj-sci072611.php

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed_cameras.pdf

http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7487/331

djimi

MugMugs wrote: »

Issue a lot of the time is where they can locate. On the N2 for instance they're restricted on where they can safely park so it's always the same spots. There have also been times when land owners have had them pushed off their land due to trespass like on the Dunleer Collon link road between the N2 and M1

Ah yeah no I understand that. But equally I can think of several zones where there are plenty of places for them to pull in, yet they park in exactly the same spot each time.

djimi

Iwannahurl, I think you might want to reword one of the sentences in your first paragraph there...!

ljpg

bitburger wrote: »

All I can say is i love the fact my motorbike has no number plate on the front :pac:

fear not,the new "go safe" vans coming out will pick ya up front and back so unless your going to ride with no plates at all........

ManMade

ljpg wrote: »

fear not,the new "go safe" vans coming out will pick ya up front and back so unless your going to ride with no plates at all........

Muck on the plates is getting increasingly common now in rural areas

Iwannahurl

djimi wrote: »

Iwannahurl, I think you might want to reword one of the sentences in your first paragraph there...!

Unlikely. I generally choose my words very carefully.

It may be useful to consider the possibility of bitter irony.

ljpg

brokenarms wrote: »

I, as a resident have recently complained to the Garda in relation to the speed of motorists entering my village .
Their answer last week was a speed detection van placed in a very visible spot for 2 days.
My reasons behind the complaint was a number of separate fatal accidents over the last two years . And numerous collisions where speed could have been a factor. I have a young family and feel the speed of cars to be a threat to my children's safety.
Observing the road now, it seems to have helped as the speed of the traffic has reduced even when the van is not there.

I would say it has been a complete success and made our 50kph zone a safer place.

I though this may be a good place to debate the issue and answer a few questions I still have.

Why people flash and warn dangerous drivers of the upcoming van?
Surly warning some bad drivers who are blatantly disrespecting the law and people around them need to be flashed before they hurt someone.

Do you feel these devices are there to increase revenue only?

Do you think they will reduce road deaths on our roads?

speed camera vans in my opinion are for revenue gathering,plain and simple,if the garda wanted to slow people down in your village a more visable presence for a few days/checkpoints would have done the same job,how many drink drivers/uninsured drivers passed those speed vans in your village over those couple of days??? quite a few i imagine,any yet they drive on no bother at all,also the idea of a van parked on the side of the road to stop people speeding is in itself ridiculous,i mean if your in a hurry you slow down for the van...pass it and then speed up again!!!

Ilik Urgee

You are absolutely right to campaign for your own family's safety, and for safer roads generally. So far I have failed to convince them to do the same in my 'village'.


Never mind the begrudgers, OP, because the evidence is on your side. For example:


There should be a fine introduced to irresponsible parents who leave their kids play,walk or run anywhere on a public highway. See how the begrugery shoe fits then.

Nonsense to think this whole Go Safe wasn't at least partially if not mainly introduced to boost revenue. And here's the killer-they contract it out to a spainish outfit:P

H3llR4iser

Sorry, but I will always see automated traffic surveillance as just a way to make money; The whole basic concept of the speed cameras is that they are cost-effective, a purely commercial consideration. They will work briefly in certain circumstances and even so, their real effect on the rate of accidents is debatable as the data is polluted with external factors (cost of petrol, improved active safety of cars, improved roads, less idiots in souped-up Civics and so on).

The "we invest in safety" motto is purely PR bull****; They invest in cheap PERCEIVED road safety - slap a camera here and there, and Joe Average will think "ah, sure they're making the place safer!". The speed camera doesn't check for people breaking red lights; It doesn't check for drink driving or driving under the influence; It doesn't check distracted driving (reading the newspaper or applying makeup anyone? Saw 'em both and much more); It doesn't check failures to yield, nor turn indicators usage, nor unlicensed drivers, nor a car's road worthiness (and no, the NCT ain't enough).

Want to do proper road safety? Education and PATROLS. Someone goes through a speed camera, gets fined, he/she will pay it up and next time slow down JUST when they see a camera. Someone that gets an earful from the Traffic Corps on top of the fine, on the other hand, will feel like a proper cretin for quite some time and try to avoid a repeat of the experience.

Patrols on the side of the road or driving around can, also, check for any violations and stop drivers behaving erratically, holding the traffic up, not paying attention to the road and so on. All things a stupid speed camera will miss.

Iwannahurl

Ilik Urgee wrote: »

You are absolutely right to campaign for your own family's safety, and for safer roads generally. So far I have failed to convince them to do the same in my 'village'.

Never mind the begrudgers, OP, because the evidence is on your side. For example:

There should be a fine introduced to irresponsible parents who leave their kids play,walk or run anywhere on a public highway. See how the begrugery shoe fits then.

Nonsense to think this whole Go Safe wasn't at least partially if not mainly introduced to boost revenue. And here's the killer-they contract it out to a spainish outfit:P

That does not compute.

Just for clarification, can you define "public highway"? Does a street in a housing estate fall into that category?

djimi

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Unlikely. I generally choose my words very carefully.

It may be useful to consider the possibility of bitter irony.

Fair enough! Irony/sarcasm doesnt always come across as being obvious on internet forums...!

Matt Simis

I think the OP has a vindictive need to see others "punished" thats being legitimised. But anyway, as a former resident in a residential area where people speed (most crashed a lot) we found big fook off speed ramps are more effective as they work against unregistered/stolen/foreign/"muck on the plates" cars and work all year round, all times of the day and all weather conditions.

Your Speed Camera vans saves rhetoric was the poorer option available though Im sure the Government thanks you for some free cash from its citizens. Think of the children etc.

djimi

ljpg wrote: »

speed camera vans in my opinion are for revenue gathering,plain and simple,if the garda wanted to slow people down in your village a more visable presence for a few days/checkpoints would have done the same job,how many drink drivers/uninsured drivers passed those speed vans in your village over those couple of days??? quite a few i imagine,any yet they drive on no bother at all,also the idea of a van parked on the side of the road to stop people speeding is in itself ridiculous,i mean if your in a hurry you slow down for the van...pass it and then speed up again!!!

Im not really sure how having two Gardai on the road would change that? Okay yes you might catch people for other things, but if the exercise is to slow people down/catch people speeding then it makes little difference whether its a van or a manned checkpoint. I can only assume that the Gardai weighed up the effectiveness of having men standing at a checkpoint where they might catch nobody at all, when they could be used for a more useful purpose elsewhere.

Zcott

Matt Simis wrote: »

I think the OP has a vindictive need to see others "punished" thats being legitimised. But anyway, as a former resident in a residential area where people speed (most crashed a lot), big fook off speed ramps are more effective as they work against unregistered/stolen/foreign cars and work all year round, all times of the day and all weather conditions.

Your Speed Camera vans saves rhetoric was the poorer option available. Think of the children etc.

The argument against speed humps is that they unnecessarily slow down emergency vehicles too.

Ilik Urgee

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That does not compute.

Neither does your insinuation that I'm a begrudger.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Just for clarification, can you define "public highway"? Does a street in a housing estate fall into that category?

Am I allowed to park at the pavement outside your door? If yes, then yes to your question. See how impractical the whole lot gets now?

Same as the positioning as a lot of these Go Safe vans.

listermint

Zcott wrote: »

The argument against speed humps is that they unnecessarily slow down emergency vehicles too.

Very poor arguement tbh

Matt Simis

Zcott wrote: »

The argument against speed humps is that they unnecessarily slow down emergency vehicles too.

Not unless they are laid incorrectly.. Current rolled out design of Speed ramps are designed to a width thats just under the average width of Fire Engines and Ambulances.

Gardai dont really give a $hit and ramp over them, much like the people they may be chasing (though likely they would still be impaired vs our trained police force.. maybe).

djimi

Matt Simis wrote: »

I think the OP has a vindictive need to see others "punished" thats being legitimised. But anyway, as a former resident in a residential area where people speed (most crashed a lot) we found big fook off speed ramps are more effective as they work against unregistered/stolen/foreign/"muck on the plates" cars and work all year round, all times of the day and all weather conditions.

Your Speed Camera vans saves rhetoric was the poorer option available though Im sure the Government thanks you for some free cash from its citizens. Think of the children etc.

I agree; traffic calming measures are far more effective if you actually want to slow people down (as opposed to just catching them speeding). But residents cannot just go around constructing their own homemade traffic calming measures, so as a short term option having a camera on the road is as good an option as you going to get.

Also by the sounds of it the cameras did their job and slowed people down through the village (even if it was only a short term fix), so wheres the issue?

MugMugs

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Just for clarification, can you define "public highway"? Does a street in a housing estate fall into that category?

Public Highway generally means Public Road/place but it's a UK saying more so.

Public road is defined as

“‘public place’ means—

(a) any public road, and

(b) any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;”;

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Does a street in a housing estate fall into that category?

One would imagine that it does, yes.

Matt Simis

djimi wrote: »

I agree; traffic calming measures are far more effective if you actually want to slow people down (as opposed to just catching them speeding). But residents cannot just go around constructing their own homemade traffic calming measures, so as a short term option having a camera on the road is as good an option as you going to get.

Also by the sounds of it the cameras did their job and slowed people down through the village (even if it was only a short term fix), so wheres the issue?

A: Um Im not suggesting they lay their own ramps, they can petition the council just like the OP did and get them. Its effectively the same route.
B: The problem is his attitude shows a preference that people need to be fined over actually slowing down and also the fact that his solution is pretty crappy, being very short term and completely hit and miss (all the cars in my post not affected at all). All its good for is some minor revenue generation, the worst speed offenders are not affected by something as dumb as a camera van.

djimi

Matt Simis wrote: »

A: Um Im not suggesting they lay their own ramps, they can petition the council just like the OP did and get them. Its effectively the same route.
B: The problem is his attitude shows a preference that people need to be fined over actually slowing down and also the fact that his solution is pretty crappy, being very short term and completely hit and miss (all the cars in my post not affected at all). All its good for is some minor revenue generation, the worst speed offenders are not affected by something as dumb as a camera van.

If you read the first post youll see that they brought the speed issue to the Gardai, who then took it upon themselves to place a speed van on the road. By the sounds of it this resolved the issue, even if just in the short term. I dont see where the problem is? Can you think of a better short term fix?

Petitioning the council is all well and good, but if you have a council who wont listen or cant afford to do anything then petitioning is not going to have much of an effect. If people are actually dying then something urgent needs to be done.

From what I can see of this thread the OP has just given an example of where a speed van has helped in an area where speeding was an issuie. I dont see the need for the usual rabble rabble speed cameras evil revenue generating etc; in this case they seem have actually done their job, which should show that if they are used properly, in areas where they are actually needed, they could possibly be an effective method of resolving an issue with speeding.

dgt

Nobody has come up with a valid reason for the positioning of the vans in my earier posts. No-one has offered to explain why the vans don't safely park near the black spot but would rather park in a location to catch motorists sneakily.

Out of sheer begrudgery my questions haven't been answered. Because I am right about the positioning of those vans is just to raise revenue and the begrudgers don't want to admit that.

Otherwise speak up and prove me wrong (that isn't going to happen)

djimi

dgt wrote: »

Nobody has come up with a valid reason for the positioning of the vans in my earier posts. No-one has offered to explain why the vans don't safely park near the black spot but would rather park in a location to catch motorists sneakily.

Out of sheer begrudgery my questions haven't been answered. Because I am right about the positioning of those vans is just to raise revenue and the begrudgers don't want to admit that.

Otherwise speak up and prove me wrong (that isn't going to happen)

There is no arguement against what you said; for the most part the vans are placed where they will make the most money, not where they will increase safety.

My point was this thread is about where a van has increased safety in its area as intended, yet there are still a lot of people who are going on as if all these vans are is a revenue generator. The point of this thread should be to outline how the vans could be used properly, not that they are an altogether useless system.

brokenarms

dgt wrote: »

Nobody has come up with a valid reason for the positioning of the vans in my earier posts. No-one has offered to explain why the vans don't safely park near the black spot but would rather park in a location to catch motorists sneakily.

Out of sheer begrudgery my questions haven't been answered. Because I am right about the positioning of those vans is just to raise revenue and the begrudgers don't want to admit that.

Otherwise speak up and prove me wrong (that isn't going to happen)

The situation where they have been used in my post is all I can really comment on with certainty .
They used one end of a large bus stop to park the van. A place, I suppose is designed to have a large vehicle parked there.Walkers have easy access around the van and drivers can see past it.
I can see your point when some vans are parked in strange places. But I would imagine as they are not using 4x4 transits, they are very limited on where they can park. There must be a place that has firm or paved ground.

Could you imagine the media photos if one got stuck up to the axles.

Have you any examples there they have been badly parked?


I had hoped I could use the data gathered by the Garda to build a case for some traffic calming methods. There is plans to redevelop the area soon and the van is probably the only way to gather data on bad drivers. Its perfect as a lever to get the council to act. They cant ignore creditable results.
I dont particularly want to see ramps myself. If motorists would simply drive the way they are supposed too, there would be no need.

ironclaw

Matt Simis wrote: »

our trained police force.

:rolleyes:

Too funny.

Also to clarify, a bike (With no front plate) going towards the rear of the van cannot be caught for speeding. A bike travelling away from the rear of the van can be caught. Pictures are only taken at the rear of the van, so only the plate facing the rear of the van can be photographed.